|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 60 (9209 total) |
| |
Skylink | |
Total: 919,495 Year: 6,752/9,624 Month: 92/238 Week: 9/83 Day: 9/24 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5409 days) Posts: 961 From: A wheatfield in Kansas Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Should we let Bill Frist & Co. change the rules of the senate ? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 6074 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
Rrhain did a pretty good job covering the ground I'd have gone over in response to your post. I'm not sure how important it is to have only a section of the senate up for a vote at one time, but the rest was pretty straightforward.
Majority rule is not and never was the point of this nation, but rather majority action with protection of minorities within. It really was a bit of genius for the time, and sad to say we seem to be losing it all over the place. Including some of its most vociferous champions (ahem).
Seculow does seem to make a lot of sense, however. The jury is still out on his sanity. Seculow may be smart, and he may be a great guy personally. He may even be on the right side of the argument from time to time. HOWEVER, the ACLJ is a tool for advancing theocracy rather than just protecting religious rights. While you are listening to the ACLJ now, I was listening to Robertson and Seculow almost daily before there was an ACLJ and as they created that organization. Remain very skeptical and always ask if what they are doing is defending some individuals right to not be interfered with, or an overt right to interfere with the lives of others. Even acts of faith can become obstructive, disruptive, and in the case of state employees proselytizing by the state. My question to them is why they want to help people take the Lord's name in vain so much. That proscription was not just about swearing, but of appealing to his name so as to cloak onesself and one's actions with his visage. Evangelists particularly seem to fail on issues of pride, idolatry, and taking the lord's name in vain... and maybe false testimony too. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18650 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 4.3 |
Yeah...I'm just stirring up the pot a bit. I actually don't have any argument worthy to challenge the pluralistic one that you guys are espousing.
It will be interesting to see how Americas image is seen by the rest of the world should we swing ideologically to the left again. It seems that whenever America has recently been moderate to left, the world takes advantage of our niceness and largesse.1) Jimmy Carter...nice guy, terrible economy. 2) Bill Clinton...smart guy, so so foreign policy. 3) J.F.K. (hey, one out of three ain't bad!)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18650 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 4.3 |
holmes writes: Yeah...I've often wondered if there is any way that American law and policy could ever really and truly be Christian based. Jesus did point out, as Rrhain emphasized, that we are to render to Caesar only what Caesar is responsible for. Evangelists particularly seem to fail on issues of pride, idolatry, and taking the lord's name in vain... and maybe false testimony too. Wealthy, Christian Americans are truly afraid to give up the overwhelming advantage in material goods that God has blessed them with. Could it be that the only reason that this nation ever was blessed is so that we would give it to the poor masses of this world? If so, we as a "Christian" nation are failing miserably. Even if you take the "Christian" out of the equation, it may well be that America is faced with the choice to let go of the wealth in order to get along with the world or to be yet another Empire that is bent on maintaining control of the resources of this planet.holmes writes: You are an enigma, Holmes! I never would have pictured you as listening to those guys! When you really befuddle me is when you go off on those rants where you defend youth exposure to sexuality as not harmful in the long run to those youth! Sometimes you have a lawyer side to your arguments that seems to come out of nowhere! I was listening to Robertson and Seculow almost daily before there was an ACLJ and as they created that organization. Remain very skeptical and always ask if what they are doing is defending some individuals right to not be interfered with, or an overt right to interfere with the lives of others. I would have to research your posts to actually respond to this in any way, however>>> Sometimes you seem so liberal and sometimes so conservative! This message has been edited by Phatboy, 05-30-2005 04:03 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 6074 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
I never would have pictured you as listening to those guys!
I was surrounded by those types until I graduated. I actually went to high school just a few blocks from the Billy Graham Center. After that I went to a religious affiliated college (chosen for money and location and size, not religious reasons) where I also was around many diverse religious people, including fundies. Graduated and lived in hicktown USA where there were plenty of fundies all over the place trying to wipe out my rights. I learned very quickly that evangelicals were my enemy, as opposed to simple religious people, and so should learn more about what they were doing. You could say I watched the 700 club "religiously", but with less than religious motivation. What was funny is that some fundies actually mistook me for being more religious than them, and even found my keeping up on so much religious info to be more fundamentalist than them.
When you really befuddle me is when you go off on those rants where you defend youth exposure to sexuality as not harmful in the long run to those youth! Its not always a rant. Most of it is just explaining the facts. It is fact that youths are not inherently harmed by such exposure. As long as people admit that, I don't care if they move on to say they don't want their own kids being exposed to such things because they want to raise them in a certain moral/religious environment. Indeed you will not find me knocking anyone saying that sexuality might pose a metaphysical harm of some kind, except to say that is not an objectively known fact, and subjectively I do not believe it is so. I think parents have a right to consider metaphysical issues in the raising of their own children.
Sometimes you seem so liberal and sometimes so conservative! I ran off the rails somewhere and survived... that makes me an independent. Liberal and conservative are useful relative labels, but not objective ones. I do find it interesting how much we seem to agree on some matters. Actually, I'm glad for it. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member (Idle past 262 days) Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
holmes responds to me:
quote: Depends on context. As sung in the way that John Lennon did it, no.
quote: Incorrect. Try to follow along. John Lennon's song is not an atheistic song because Lennon is not an atheist. He was speaking to his own spirituality and thus, it cannot be an atheistic song as he envisioned it. That doesn't mean somebody else can't come along and impart his own take on it.
quote: No, it doesn't. It simply asks you to imagine. Does the word "metaphor" mean nothing to people? Might the song be about something bigger than a literal reading of the words might imply? If we can agree that not using the g-word doesn't mean someone isn't talking about god, then wouldn't it also be the case that the use of religious imagery might mean something beyond that? Perhaps the issue of the trappings of religiosity that interrupt the deeper connection to the infinite? Not that there really isn't a heaven but that perhaps you shouldn't be using heaven as a weapon?
quote: From what I can tell, nobody here knows what the song was. Knowing Celine Dion, there is every reason to think that it is Christian in nature for she is known for singing Christian songs. In fact, here are the lyrics:
I pray you'll be our eyes, and watch us where we go. And help us to be wise in times when we don't know Let this be our prayer, when we lose our way Lead us to the place, guide us with your grace To a place where we'll be safe La luce che tu haiI pray we'll find your light nel cuore restera and hold it in our hearts. a ricordarci che When stars go out each night, eterna stella sei The light you haveI pray we'll find your light will be in the heart and hold it in our hearts. to remember us that When stars go out each night, you are eternal star Nella mia preghiera Let this be our prayer quanta fede c'e when shadows fill our day How much faith there'sLet this be our prayer in my prayer when shadows fill our day Lead us to a place, guide us with your grace Give us faith so we'll be safe Sognamo un mondo senza piu violenzaun mondo di giustizia e di speranza Ognuno dia la mano al suo vicino Simbolo di pace, di fraternita We dream a world without violencea world of justice and faith. Everyone gives the hand to his neighbours Symbol of peace, of fraternity La forza che ci da We ask that life be kind e il desiderio che and watch us from above ognuno trovi amor We hope each soul will find intorno e dentro se another soul to love The force his gives usWe ask that life be kind is wish that and watch us from above everyone finds love We hope each soul will find around and inside another soul to love Let this be our prayer Let this be our prayer, just like every child Need to find a place, guide us with your graceGive us faith so we'll be safe Need to find a place, guide us with your grace Give us faith so we'll be safe E la fede chehai acceso in noi, sento che ci salvera It's the faithyou light in us I feel it will save us Now, as I have said, context will tell us, but this is a pretty big text to have to overcome contextually to make it something other than a great, big paean to god. "Guide us with your grace"? "The force he gives us"? "Watch us from above"? It starts off in such a way that it could be used as a song about friends, but it doesn't last that way for long. It's talking about god.
quote: Incorrect. Not mentioning god is not an insult. This is a problem many Christians fail to understand: The lack of an active praising of god at all times and in all places is not equivalent to an active statement that there is no god.
quote: So? Since when did the world need to be for children? Why can't the adults have something that isn't for the kids?
quote: But without the school's direct assent the speaker wouldn't be permitted, dear Henry, dear Henry, but without the school's direct assent the speaker wouldn't be permitted, their assent. The students can nominate whomever they wish. It doesn't mean diddly. The administration has final say and reserves the right to change any speaker for any reason. It's their ceremony.
quote: Having participated in more than my fair share of school ceremonies, including being a speaker, I think it's safe to say I have some idea how graduation ceremonies are planned. Nobody gets on that stage without the administration's approval. Nobody gets on that stage without being told by the administration what they can do.
quote: Do you honestly believe that? Do you honestly believe that if the students chose a speaker the administration couldn't abide, they'd simply bow to the will of the student body and not assert their right to determine any and all actions that will take place at said ceremony? Just who do you think is running the show?
quote: Does it matter? Constitutional rights are violated only if someone complains? How many students must be present for a school-sponsored religious ceremony to be unconstitutional?
quote: Strange, that's not what the SCOTUS said. You do recall the lawsuit against the students who used the PA system before the football games to deliver prayers. The speakers were chosen by the student body and yet the court still found that it was unconstitutional for the school to engage in such activity. Are you saying it only became unconstitutional when somebody complained about it?
quote:quote: Incorrect. We keep trying to show you that the school will always and forever retain the right to override the student body. It doesn't matter if the students nominate the speaker. The school has final say. Nobody gets on that stage without the approval of the administration. So how does that make the people on that stage something other than agents of the school?
quote: That particular song in the particular way that Dion would sing it? Yes, it is. It is inappropriate for a public school function.
quote:quote: That the school maintains complete control over everything. Oh, they give the students the illusion of having some control over the events, but it is still an illusion. Nothing happens on that stage without it being choreographed by the administration. It happened to me, after all. I got yanked. If you think the administration ever leaves anything up to someone outside their control, you've got another think coming.
quote:quote: Did you read the lyrics? They are clearly about god. Oh, the g-word is never used, but there is no question about it. Given the specific lyrics and the specific singer involved, there is no doubt that this is a religious song. It would then be up to the girl to show how she could make it something other than a religious song.
quote:quote: (*sigh*) I already did. Twice. Here it is again since you seem to have missed it (and did a tremendous hack job on it when you misquoted it):
If said student wants to talk about his religion while in line waiting to go to his seat, he should feel free. But that is him acting on his own without any action of the school involved. But the graduation speaker is there only at the whim of the school. He is therefore acting as an agent of the school. Now think about it, holmes? Is a student in line to be seated at the graduation ceremony a "graduation speaker"? Of course not. They're not an agent of the school. They are not being given a platform from which to speak. Instead, the student is simply talking from his own volution to his fellow students. If said fellow students felt like it, they could easily tell the speaker to shut up and get back in line with no consequence. A graduation speaker, however, is one who has been vetted by the administration. One who has been specifically given a platform with which to speak and one where if any of the students in the audience were to interrupt and tell the speaker to shut up, sit down, get off the stage, etc., would be rightfully ejected from the ceremony. Free speech requires the ability for others to respond. The students in the audience are not free to respond to the graduation speakers.
quote: Irrelevant. She submitted the lyrics for approval and was turned down by the right of the school. What's her beef? Oh, and to your comment, the administration asked her for the lyrics. She just said she wanted to sing (with another student). The administration then asked for a copy of the lyrics.
quote: Because you don't exist on that stage except at the whim of the school. It is irrelevant how you came to the administration's attention to be placed upon that stage. They are the ones who make the final decision.
quote:quote: But at the time you wrote your statement, I hadn't entered the discussion. How could it possibly have been my question? Come on, holmes, try to keep up.
quote:quote: Oh, yes, it does! Freedom of religion means nothing without the freedom from religion. I have to be able to say no to every single religious idea you put forward in order to be truly free.
quote: Oh, please. Don't be disingenuous. Freedom from religion does not mean that nobody is ever allowed to utter religious expressions. It means nobody is allowed to force religion upon people without their consent. The schoolyard grounds are not the public square.
quote: Ah, yes...the nonsensical Breyer argument (shared by O'Connor and Kennedy and Souter) that a reference to god isn't actually a reference to, you know, god. Acknolwedging the existence of god is necessarily a religious notion.
quote: That song is a gospel song, though.
quote: You mean there can be god without religion?
quote: Indeed, but no right is absolute. She is free to speak but not right here, not right now.
quote: So a sermon is only a sermon if it's effective?
quote: Why does it matter? You can't be talking about god unless you give a specific name for that god?
quote:quote: Are you or are you not claiming that the song is not a religious song? Did you or did you not use as justification for that claim that it isn't a religious song the fact that it simply uses the word "faith" and "prayer"? Your argument is that she didn't use the g-word. Her sermon wasn't fire-and-brimstone, damn people to hell, sinners in the hands of an angry GOD and therefore it wasn't religious. But it is. It uses specifically religious imagery. It was released by a religious singer. It is a religious song. She could try to make it secular, but she'd have to cut out some lyrics.
quote: Logical error: Equivocation. The word "faith" in "Faith" does not mean the same thing as the word "faith" in "The Prayer." George is talking about getting laid. Celine is talking about god.
quote:quote: Who said anything about California? Remember...I'm an Air Froce brat. I'm from everywhere.
quote: Oh, yes they are. The very idea of tolerance stems from etiquette. The enforcement of equal legal proceedings is the legal equivalent of tolerance. You respect the diversity by tolerating the differences.
quote: Wrong. You understand the differences among the public, the private, and the government arenas, yes? You are allowed to have whatever sex you want in private. You aren't allowed to have sex in public (theoretically...in practice, straight people can but gay people can't.) And the government doesn't get to value one over the other. If a mixed-sex couple is allowed to hold hands while walking down on a public street, announce their marriages in the paper, and kiss each other goodbye at the airport, then so are same-sex couples.
quote: I am? Since when did I ever say I was gay? I certainly don't recall mentioning it. I've been very careful not to say one way or the other in order to counter precisely the argument you are trying to use: That my statements are somehow related to my status. Would the veracity of my statements change if I were straight? Then why the assumption that I'm gay?
quote: But not if it is inappropriate. Tolerance and diversity also recognizes that there are times and places where it is inappropriate to engage in certain activities. Sometimes, illegal. Not right here, not right now.
quote: Excuse me? Since when did it become "intolerant" to refuse to accomodate boors? What a typical, right-wing statement: Refusal to accept intolerance is somehow labeled "intolerance." Since when?
quote: You can't have freedom to without freedom from.
quote:quote: Then why did she sue? She wanted to sing a religious song. The administration said no. Somehow, she thought her rights were being violated. And yet you claim that this issue is a tiny, miniscule issue. So why did she sue? If this is such an innocuous, diaphanous event, why did she feel the need to hire a lawyer? She obviously felt it was important enough. Therefore, she must have felt that she couldn't continue unless she were allowed to preach to the student body. She couldn't sing something else?
quote: The lyrics. You did read them before you started in on this conversation, didn't you?
quote:quote: How is a song written specifically to be a prayer to god and popularized by a singer who has made her career singing religious songs something other than a religious song? I'd love to see the context that this song could justified to be something other than a religious pleading to god.
quote: Ah, so constitutional violations aren't really violations unless somebody says something and when they do, they're being jerks about it. C'mon...I only hit you a little. It isn't really "assault" unless I break your bones, right?
quote: I think the Constitution is the ultimate authority. I think the interpretational precedents are clear.
quote: (*chuckle*) Since you don't seem to understand that you can't have freedom to without freedom from, one wonders how you can say such with a straight face.
quote:quote: Yes. Didn't you read the decision? The judge ruled that because Ashby wasn't denied her place as a speaker but rather the school was exercising its right to control the content of the ceremony, she had no claim.
quote: And neither did you, apparently. I, on the other hand, did.
quote: (*chuckle*) Amazing how in this entire discussion, I'm the one who quoted the lyrics. Not you. Not crash. You, yourself, admitted that you didn't know who sang the song. Why did you fail to do your homework first?
quote: Because the lyrics clearly indicate that it is a religious song. It was written specifically to be a religious song. It was orginally performed by a singer who specializes in religious songs (among others). So if the author, the original performer, and this particular individual all think it's a religious song, who are you to say it isn't? Everybody directly involved seems to understand that they're talking about god. How is it you know that they're not?
quote:quote: Incorrect. The acknowledgement of the existence of god is by necessity a religious ceremony. Are you saying that when we're talking about god we're not actually talking about god? Unless we specifically state a name for the particular god in question, it isn't really god?
quote: What about spiritual belief systems that do not include gods? What about spiritual belief systems that have multiple gods? What about spiritual belief systems that are of the opinion that god doesn't care about your daily life? There is no such thing as "non-denominational." Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member (Idle past 262 days) Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
holmes writes:
quote: The House is dissolved every single year. Each year, the rules for how the House will conduct business are voted on by the House. The point of the House is that it is the emodiment of the popular will. Every time it meets, it needs to create itself anew as the embodiment of the current state. Because every single representative is elected every single time, you can get a brand new House with no connection to the past at all. The House is about the here and now. The Senate, on the other hand, is not. While the rules of the Senate can change, they were essentially written when the Senate first came into existence two centuries ago. The Senate is supposed to be a body that stretches all the way back into the past. While it needs refreshing from the population, the effect of that population's opinion is blunted. It is impossible to get a completely new Senate in a single election. If you want to be the newcomer who changes the rules, you have to convince a supermajority of people who were there before you and have been working under those rules and didn't find any reason to change them. The Senate is supposed to have a memory and by making sure that most senators were around last time, it helps to keep that memory. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member (Idle past 262 days) Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Phatboy writes:
quote: Huh? The nation has always done better under a Democratic president than a Republican president for the past 60 years.
quote: Excuse me? The economy collapsed under Nixon/Ford. And despite the hyperinflation (that was a worldwide phenomenon), the 70s still turned in a better economic record than the precious 80s.
quote: Excuse me? We fought a war without losing a single American life in the Balkans. And we managed to convince France to join in. We halted the nuclear ambitions of the North Koreans and kept Iraq free of weapons of mass destruction. We handed off a plan to the next president about how to keep America safer in the face of fundamentalist Islamic terrorism which, if followed, stood a very good chance of preventing the 9/11 attacks. Our allies trusted us. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2425 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Maybe America is too pluralistic and tolerant of difference for you. quote: No, clearly you do not, phat. You clearly have been saying that you want everybody else to live the way you want them to live so your children don't have to be exposed to people who live differently that you do. You don't like diversity at all, judging by your recent posts.
quote: Clearly, since you are a Christian, not a woman, or not gay, you don't feel as threatened and oppressed as those of us who are.
quote: Like I said, America is too pluralistic a place for you. I think you would be more comfortable in a place where everyone was compelled by the government to think and act the same way. Of course, you might think differently if the ruling religious class in America was, say, Hindu, wouldn't you?
quote: So, are you telling all of us non-Christians to sit down and shut up while Fundamentalist Evangelical Christianity becomes the offical US state moral code and religion? edited to fix quote box and spelling. This message has been edited by schrafinator, 05-30-2005 08:46 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2425 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
The Government, being resolved to undertake the political and moral purification of our public life, are creating and securing the conditions necessary for a really profound revival of religious life.... The National Government regard the two Christian Confessions as the weightiest factors for the maintenance of our nationality. They will respect the agreements concluded between them and the federal States. Their rights are not to be infringed.... It will be the Government's care to maintain honest co-operation between Church and State; the struggle against materialistic views and for a real national community is just as much in the interest of the...nation as in that of the welfare of our Christian faith. The Government..., who regard Christianity as the unshakable foundation of the morals and moral code of the nation, attach the greatest value to friendly relations with (religious leaders) and are endeavouring to develop them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1722 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Recall the recent story about the pregnant girl who was barred from graduation who waited for the class to walk, stood up from the audience, stated her own name, and walked across. The school had barred her from participation. The boy who got her pregnant, however, was allowed to walk. ! That's the most beautiful thing I've ever heard.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1722 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
This is an equivocation. A student may represent the caliber of students graduating from that school, but not be an official representative of the school. Nonsense. Why else would the school be in a position to moderate the speech of that student? Of course the student is acting as a state agent. Let's not be ridiculous, ok?
I should also point out that the article mentioned another student went into a speech specifically about the Bible at the ceremony the girl was stopped from singing. So, what you're saying is, it's impossible to talk about the Bible without it being religion? You're asking us to come to a lot of conclusions about speech with no indication of what was actually said. I don't find that a legitimate position from which to debate.
Argument from Authority? Especially on court decisions, are you kidding me? It's a hell of a lot better than the argument from ignorance we're currently engaged in. Exactly what information do you have that the court did not? Exactly what legal principle are you aware of that the court was not? If it's just your opinion, well, that's fine. I have an opinion too. More importantly, the judge had an opinion, and he/she is the only party here actually apointed for the purpose of delivering legal opinions.
So I take it you support the Constitutional end run that Scalia and Co did in 2000 as beyond your ability to question. It is beyond my ability to question. That's not to say that I agree with it, but there are no legal options avaliable to me for challenge. An opinion was given; that opinion was not the one I liked but it's the one we got. And I'm not a lawyer. It's entirely possible that there's a finer point of law that's simply beyond me. Unlike some around here I don't presume that my expertise extends to literally every field of human endeavor.
They do speak at the pleasure of whoever is finalizing arrangements and so limited by restrictions... but that does not make them tantamount to an employee. But that's not the standard that must be met. I never said they were a state employee. But they are a state actor. That's how it works. That's the legal principle. If you can be reasonably seen to be acting on behalf of a state body - such as giving a speech at their pleasure - then you're a state actor, and subject to the same restrictions of the state. It's funny, but true. If I impersonate a police officer, I'm subject to the same restrictions on the gathering of evidence, etc, that don't apply to private citizens. The state doesn't have to put me on the payroll for me to be an actor for the state.
Your school is NOT your friggin' employer Who said they were? Clearly the terminology we're employing has gone right over your head.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 6074 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
Actually I understood the mechanics, and the intent. I was more or less questioning how important that one mechanism would be. One could use other mechanisms as well.
I'm not criticizing it, just saying it isn't as useful or necessary to the point at hand as the other points you mentioned. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 6074 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
Why else would the school be in a position to moderate the speech of that student? To protect the school function from disruptions, or make sure fun is had by all?
Of course the student is acting as a state agent. Let's not be ridiculous, ok? If this is the level of argument you are going to continue with, reassertion and ad hominem, let's end it. Otherwise come up with some valid points to show why a student at a function is necessarily an "agent" of the school system and everything they say is an "endorsement" of a position. I have already offered you the counterexamples of school dances, parties, and I could add plays. A student "represents" the school in a different way than the officials "represent" the school system. You are equivocating.
So, what you're saying is, it's impossible to talk about the Bible without it being religion?
Huh? I don't understand what your point is or where you derived that from what I said.
It's a hell of a lot better than the argument from ignorance we're currently engaged in. Uhhhh... I am not using the argument from ignorance. Where did I say I don't know something therefore it must not be?
the judge had an opinion, and he/she is the only party here actually apointed for the purpose of delivering legal opinions. Laws are made by and for the people. The founders of this nation were not lawyers and judges. They were simply smart people. If you can't understand the law enough to speak intelligently about it, then drop out of the conversation. Now I am wondering why you even brought up the case you did... just to bitch and moan? Hey everybody this sucks and it may be against the Constitution, but I don't know and can't really say???
And I'm not a lawyer. It's entirely possible that there's a finer point of law that's simply beyond me. Unlike some around here I don't presume that my expertise extends to literally every field of human endeavor. You do not have to be a lawyer, nor a judge, to know enough about the law to address certain cases, especially when dealing with CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. Let me give you a hint, you need to know the CONSTITUTION, and the law or ruling under question, and some SCOTUS (or trends within them).My expertise does not extend to all forms of human endeavour. I can point you to threads where I admit I do not have knowledge in a field and require more info. Law in general I have a bit of experience with as my step family was composed entirely of lawyers. Free speech issues, and Freedom of religion issues, I have experience dealing with directly through my education and into my business dealings. I'm sorry you don't have that experience. Or enough to speak intelligently on the subject. Don't drag me down to your level just because you can't come up with an answer to a question or criticism.
If I impersonate a police officer, I'm subject to the same restrictions on the gathering of evidence, etc, that don't apply to private citizens. If you impersonate a police officer, in most places you will be commiting a crime and get arrested. In some states if you investigate a crime and you are not an officer you are NOT bound by the same restrictions even if it goes to court. However if you are hired by them, then you will. In any case, if you speak at a police benefit and mention a "thanks to God" for having made it through all the tough spots you were in, the police department is not liable for having violated anyone's religious rights.
Clearly the terminology we're employing has gone right over your head. No, it's not. What's funny is that you have avoided my direct questions as well as teh fact that I have changed my position to not challenge the ruling given that I was NOT sure about surrounding details (which is why I am not making an argument from ignorance) of what she was suing for and if she was suing the right people. My cirticism was the Judge's denial her speech was infringed upon, as well as (and more importantly) your claim that if she had sung the song it would have been a violation of your constitutional rights. Correct me if I am wrong, but that article in no way shape or form suggested that he would have violated your rights by allowing her to sing, or that she would have violated your rights if she had sung. They simply backed up that he did not violate her rights by denying her ability to sing. You can really do better than this crash. I didn't even start insulting you, so I know I didn't deserve the insults. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member (Idle past 262 days) Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
crashfrog writes:
quote: More appropriately: If the police are barred from entering a room to conduct a search because they do not have cause to search the room, they cannot deliberately go out and recruit someone who isn't a police officer to go in that room and do the search for them. The person at that point is an agent of the police and is subject to the same rules barring search. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 6074 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
Depends on context. As sung in the way that John Lennon did it, no. The question gave the context of a teen using up time alotted at a mic on graduation day. Now answer the question.
John Lennon's song is not an atheistic song because Lennon is not an atheist. He was speaking to his own spirituality and thus, it cannot be an atheistic song as he envisioned it. I see, then it would be unconstitutional because it was religious in nature. My mistake.
No, it doesn't. It simply asks you to imagine. Hey, dude. I know the song and I get what he is saying. He asks you to imagine that there are no things that certain religious types hold quite true, and then suggests that without such "trappings" the world would be a better place. I really like that song, I really like his message. But I'd be less than honest if I were to say that it did not suggest the denial of certain religious tenets and so be offensive to some people on religious grounds.
From what I can tell, nobody here knows what the song was. I did, others may not. I do not understand the Italian parts (or whatever the other language is).
but this is a pretty big text to have to overcome contextually to make it something other than a great, big paean to god. What god? Can you honestly tell me what God, or Gods, or religious tenets I am to ascribe to? Your assertion was that this song was a religious ceremony, a worship service. I think the text shows that it is clearly not such a thing. It is a general (rather bland) exercise in describing her feelings about faith. That the generic entity which gives it to her appears to be male, and above, is hardly going to make people of various religions upset. My guess is Dion is probably Xian and so the entity she gets her faith from is God (though I am not certain it is the evangelical God), and the girl appears to evangelical so my guess is her inspiration is that God. But to a crowd of people who have little idea who she is, the text could mean anything. In any case, it is NOT a service.
Not mentioning god is not an insult. Demanding that others never mention God, including during moments where they are going to express personal emotional opinion (like say a graduation ceremony) is an insult. I agree there is a degree of mentioning religious belief where it crosses into disruptive behavior... proselytization. Mentioning God is not always that and not always an insult. That's a problem rabid atheists have, they believe any mention of personal faith is an insult and often a violation of their rights.
So? Since when did the world need to be for children? Why can't the adults have something that isn't for the kids? How does this answer my point at all? There is no truth to your statement that songs with such content are currently prevented from sale to minors. Deal with the point. On a wholly new topic, you are now fully advocating censorship, even outside the state facilities? Scratch a kneejerk liberal, find a fascist!
The students can nominate whomever they wish. It doesn't mean diddly. The administration has final say and reserves the right to change any speaker for any reason. It's their ceremony. Gee, I guess that's why I already said that I had changed my position on the ruling. Since they usually have the power to deselect for various reasons, being overcautious could be one of their valid reasons. What that does not mean however, is that if they had allowed the girl to sing, that she would have been an agent of the state or selected by them to give a specific message which they endorse. Just because an entity refuses to invoke a proscriptive power they might have, does not mean they endorse everything which passes through.
Do you honestly believe that? Do you honestly believe that if the students chose a speaker the administration couldn't abide, they'd simply bow to the will of the student body and not assert their right to determine any and all actions that will take place at said ceremony? Just who do you think is running the show? Yes, WHERE I CAME FROM, a speaker DID get on that the administration didn't abide because of student pressure. There were also things SAID that they did not like. Yes, they would not allow a disruptive event to occur. They even threatened to withhold diplomas for those who were rumored to be planning a particularly disruptive event. Because they prevent disruption is not the same as having specifically chosen speakers nor forced words into their mouths, or nixed all words with which they might not wholly agree. Boo hoo if your schools weren't like that, guess your schools really sucked. Heck I was at one school function in Europe where a girl used the word "fuck" and overtly suggested she gave good blowjobs in a song. My guess is the administration wasn't endorsing that, but they ALLOWED it. ALLOWANCE DOES NOT EQUAL ENDORSEMENT.
Constitutional rights are violated only if someone complains? How many students must be present for a school-sponsored religious ceremony to be unconstitutional? No, rights can be violated even if no one complains, and I already answered the question about numbers needed to be present.
Strange, that's not what the SCOTUS said. You do recall the lawsuit against the students who used the PA system before the football games to deliver prayers. The speakers were chosen by the student body and yet the court still found that it was unconstitutional for the school to engage in such activity. That is a different case and a different context. For a guy so hot for context, how could you miss the huge difference? In the graduation ceremony an individual is stating their own personal feelings at that highly emotional moment, about their experiences, and their futures. It is an individual and isolated event. Having prayers at football gameS, shows that it is an ongoing practice that is not an individual reflecting at a moment of posterity and (most importantly) is unquestionably a religious service.
So how does that make the people on that stage something other than agents of the school? Allowance does not equal endorsement, it does not equal selection, it does not equal coaching of material. That's why people allowed on a stage do not act as agents of the school. Given the specific lyrics and the specific singer involved, there is no doubt that this is a religious song.
It would then be up to the girl to show how she could make it something other than a religious song. You could actually tell me what religion she was advocating? Those words could be accepted by most religions and generally spiritual people. It was generic. Just because it contains a suggestion of personal religious belief (which I agree it certainly does) is not tantamount to a religious service. This was a vague description on the importance of faith to this girl. A very bland generic faith, and not of any set tenets.
Oh, they give the students the illusion of having some control over the events, but it is still an illusion. Nothing happens on that stage without it being choreographed by the administration. It happened to me, after all. I got yanked. If you think the administration ever leaves anything up to someone outside their control, you've got another think coming. Heheheh... a definite view behind the curtain. In any case, your school is obviously not all schools. Though I would hope mine would have had the good taste reflected in the decision your school made. I can only imagine all the sighs, blinks, chuckles and ad nauseum statements that would have been inflicted on a poor unsuspecting audience.
A graduation speaker, however, is one who has been vetted by the administration. One who has been specifically given a platform with which to speak and one where if any of the students in the audience were to interrupt and tell the speaker to shut up, sit down, get off the stage, etc., would be rightfully ejected from the ceremony. WRONG. That will depend on the school. Vetted to some degree, yes. Selected and made sure everything they say is in line with school endorsement... no. As it happens there have been cases of people who have been interrupted and ejected from the ceremonies, including people specifically asked by the administration to come and talk. One recent incident was a veteran who decided to criticize the Iraq War during an address he was invited to give at graduation and "vetted" by the officials.
Irrelevant. She submitted the lyrics for approval and was turned down by the right of the school. What's her beef? Actually this is why I changed my opinion about the decision and stated so a while back. Given all the reasons the principal has for violating people's rights to free speech, overcautioun with respect to church/state issues would seem to be valid. So her beef was pretty small. That does not however mean that if he had allowed it, it would have violated anyone's constitutional rights.
Oh, and to your comment, the administration asked her for the lyrics. She just said she wanted to sing (with another student). The administration then asked for a copy of the lyrics. Oh, I apologize for shortening it so that I didn't explain why she submitted the lyrics. Not that it matters one bit to this conversation.
But at the time you wrote your statement, I hadn't entered the discussion. How could it possibly have been my question? Come on, holmes, try to keep up. Hahahahahahahaha... whatta laugh. You responded to my post and split one half of my argument in order to ask a question that was answered if you had just read the rest of my argument. I was referring to your post and your question.
I have to be able to say no to every single religious idea you put forward in order to be truly free. You do have that freedom. That is not the freedom FROM I was describing. You have been arguing a position that others may not put forward religious ideas at all. That is the freedom FROM I was knocking.
Acknolwedging the existence of god is necessarily a religious notion. Now you are equivocating again. Yes, I freely admit that the song is religious in nature in that it certainly suggests there are forces beyond ourselves that can help us. That is different than advocating a particular religion or deity. The announcement that one believes in a religion and it has helped them, hardly forces anyone to know what faith you must follow, or that you even have to follow one.
Why does it matter? You can't be talking about god unless you give a specific name for that god? Yes it matters. Read the Bill of Rights. The issue is with the establishment of a religion, or the usurpation of your rights to conduct your religious beliefs (or lack thereof). How does a personal statement which is totally generic with respect to identity of God and tenets establish anything or deny anything?
Did you or did you not use as justification for that claim that it isn't a religious song the fact that it simply uses the word "faith" and "prayer"? Let me apologize for any confusion I may have caused. Since people were claiming this was a CONSTITUTIONAL issue, I was using "religious" and "religion" in the manner which it is used in the Bill of Rights. That is a body of beliefs and practices. Not the generic "religious" which is equated with "spiritual". The song is clearly religious in the broad sense, but is clearly not religious in the stricter sense. It does not suggest any specific religion, or denomination of religion to follow. Thus it cannot act to help establish a religion, or abridge one's rights to one's own religious beliefs.
It uses specifically religious imagery. It was released by a religious singer. It is a religious song. Then so is "Imagine", right? You said Lennon was religious, the song clearly used religious imagery, and was about (in part) religion.
George is talking about getting laid. Celine is talking about god. Heheheh. That depends on how you look at it. Having watched the South Park episode where Cartman became a Xian singer, I can't look at spiritual music the same again. She could very well be talking about sex, and he could very well be talking about God. In any case, the point I was trying to make was that "faith" does not point to anything specific. I suppose I was reaching with the Goerge Michael reference. I guess I should have gone for a Madonna song instead.
Remember...I'm an Air Froce brat. I'm from everywhere. Well I can tell you where you weren't. Things must suck lots of places though. Maybe I just had things too good and took them for granted. In any case you guys are hosers for not standing up for yourselves.
Oh, yes they are. The very idea of tolerance stems from etiquette. The enforcement of equal legal proceedings is the legal equivalent of tolerance. You respect the diversity by tolerating the differences. You respect diversity by TOLERATING the differences. Perhaps you should reflect on what that means. What is doesn't mean is people should mind that they do not offend others at all times by reigning in appearances of difference on matters of belief and action. What it does mean is that when you see someone who differs with you regarding beliefs and actions, you let it slide and don't act offended. Etiquette and laws kept gay and interracial sex, not to mention most sex of any kind, out of discussion and out of sight... and preferably in jail. We usually describe the process of more lenient laws and norms regarding sexual communication and identity as being Tolerant, and supportive of Diversity. The same would go with regard to religion.
You are allowed to have whatever sex you want in private. You aren't allowed to have sex in public (theoretically...in practice, straight people can but gay people can't.) Actually that depends on where you are. And those societies with greater freedom of expression of sexual acts, despite the fact that some might find it offensive, would be called what? More tolerant. What would they exhibit? More diversity.
I am? Since when did I ever say I was gay? I certainly don't recall mentioning it. I've been very careful not to say one way or the other in order to counter precisely the argument you are trying to use: That my statements are somehow related to my status. Uhhhh, you sure do suggest it, if you don't come out and say it. I think you have used we on occassions when discussing gays or gay issues. But maybe I'm mistaken. In any case I'm glad you finally recognize that one cannot judge a person's status from their arguments.
Tolerance and diversity also recognizes that there are times and places where it is inappropriate to engage in certain activities. Sometimes, illegal. Not right here, not right now. What a bunch of rubbish. Hey, all fundies are asking is that homosexual activity not be considered appropriate in public (not here, not now), and in some cases illegal. Is that tolerant of diversity? No.
Excuse me? Since when did it become "intolerant" to refuse to accomodate boors? What a typical, right-wing statement: Refusal to accept intolerance is somehow labeled "intolerance." Since when? You were refusing to accept her statements of personal enjoyment of faith, not a statement of intolerance towards other. Or are you suggesting there was something intolerant within those lyrics? I am not at all suggesting that you put up with people acting intolerant with you. I am outright stating there was no intolerance that I could find in those lyrics, and conversely plenty of intolerance in your own position. Your intolerance marks you as intolerant, not a lack of tolerance for the intolerance of others.
Then why did she sue? She wanted to sing a religious song. The administration said no. Somehow, she thought her rights were being violated. And yet you claim that this issue is a tiny, miniscule issue. It is tiny to those who would have heard it, not to the individual being stopped from speaking. Big enough to go to court over? Not for me, but people have their own estimates of worth and resources to pursue their claim. In any case, how does this prove that she is a person who can't go for 15 minutes without giving a sermon. I didn't make that character assessment/assassination. You did. Suing for the right to have sung what she wanted, because she felt the decision was discriminatory hardly makes one a zealot. As it stands she didn't bother continuing the suit through a full appeals process.
The lyrics. You did read them before you started in on this conversation, didn't you? Without question I did. I even tried a couple sites trying to find a translation for the other words. Your insinuation to the contrary hardly makes me want to continue talking with you. Look at those lyrics and explain to me how they are a religious ceremony? A worship service? If you honestly see a religious service in those words then there simply is nothing else to say, as I honestly don't. But I'd love to have you explain what makes that a religious ceremony, or perhaps your definition of a religious ceremony?
Ah, so constitutional violations aren't really violations unless somebody says something and when they do, they're being jerks about it. No, that is taking my words completely opposite from what they said. I said there can be constitutional violations that others would appeal for redress, and that I would not because I am more tolerant than most. That does not at all say such violations are not violations, and that those who appeal for redress are jerks. However I will admit there are cases of appealing to rights, which might be correct and yet people are jerks for pressing the issue.
Amazing how in this entire discussion, I'm the one who quoted the lyrics. Not you. Not crash. You, yourself, admitted that you didn't know who sang the song. You are certainly the first who posted the lyrics, but that proves jack shit about when I first read them. By the way, when did I ever say I didn't know who sang the song? That was in the very first post the article was cited in. Maybe you need to stop pretending you're a mind reader. What I can tell you for sure is that Crash admitted HE didn't read the lyrics, and that's what you suggested as well. On top of that you made statements which indicated an unfamiliarity with the article. That doesn't take a mindreading act.
I think the Constitution is the ultimate authority. I think the interpretational precedents are clear. So do I. And one major precedent is that not all intepretational precedents are permanent, much less correct. As it is I believe my position is tied with current interpretation. I guess we won't know for sure until such a case as this hits the Supreme Court.
The acknowledgement of the existence of god is by necessity a religious ceremony. That is ludicrous. Okay, you can have that overly broad definition of "ceremony" if you want, but that is not how most people use that term. Usually "ceremony" involves some sort of ritual tied with specific tenets of a specific belief system.
What about spiritual belief systems that do not include gods? What about spiritual belief systems that have multiple gods? What about spiritual belief systems that are of the opinion that god doesn't care about your daily life? I don't see any of these groups being offended or contradicted (especially the multiple God system) by the lyrics in that song. It is generic enough to be fitted to anything. And more importantly, it does not suggest any single religion as the most appropriate one. Please point to the lyrics that show this. I see the most qualifying terms being that the entity helping her is a "he" and "above". As far as I can tell that covers (is acceptable) to almost all polytheistic religions currently in practice, as well as the spiritual yet no god religions. Just to let you know, I don't have so much time to answer your posts as they are currently being written. Can you please keep things short? It seems to me the only important points are: 1) The subject of if her singing the song would have been a violation of your rights, 2) What makes that song a religious ceremony (or what is a ceremony in the first place) 3) What lyrics within that song count as an establishment of a religion 4) What makes a student an agent of the school system. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024